 |
 |
> > > Today, 8 June, is the feast of ... > > > * William, archbishop of York (1154) > > One cannot help but feel that William owed his elevation to sainthood > > less to his own life and character than to need of York Minster to > > have its own local saint buried on the spot. After all, York was > > rather unlucky in having various sainted (arch)bischops such as Chad, > > Bosa, John of Beverley and Wilfrid all buried elsewhere, thus missing > > out on a profitable pilgrimage trade. Or am I being cynical? > Not at all: note the date of his canonisation, 1227. York was envious of Canterbury, who now had > its very own archbishop-martyr enshrined within its cathedral: a big draw for pilgrims and an > excellent source of revenue. William's only recorded claim to sanctity (at least while he was alive) > was, that as he was returning to York with his entourage, the Ouse Bridge collapsed under him, and > some of his companions fell into the river. William prayed for them, and they reached the bank > safely. If you really wanted to be cynical, you could say that this was because they could swim; or > because the river is not very deep, and would have been even shallower in those days. These > rationalist considerations made no impression on the canons of York, who knew a good thing when > they saw it. Oriens. Sadly, it was not so much a 'good thing' as a case of 'better than nothing' - William never attained even a fraction of Becket's popularity. York equally lost out on royal burials, having to make the best of the tomb of the infant William of Hatfield, son of Edward III (whose effigy looks a lot more impressive as well as older than the real princeling could ever have been). Clearly a case of 'Alas, poor York!' - but now I am guilty of trespassing outside the medieval-religion bounds as well as of a bad pun. Sophie Oosterwijk Dept of the History of Art University of Leicester %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%